US v. Jeremy Saunder

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999666393-2]. Originating case number: 2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-2. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999730632]. [15-4413]

Appeal: 15-4413

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JEREMY LYNN SAUNDERS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cr-00002-RAJ-DEM-2)

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

January 6, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Theuer, JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4413

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Jeremy
distribute

Lynn

Saunders

narcotics,

841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A)

furtherance

of

a

in

pled

violation

(2012),

drug

guilty

and

crime,

conspiracy

21

possession

trafficking

U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012).

of

to

U.S.C.
of

in

a

to

§§ 846,

firearm

violation

of

in
18

The district court sentenced him to a

term of 300 months in prison.

In accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Saunders’ attorney has filed a
brief

certifying

appeal

but

that

there

questioning

are

whether

no

the

meritorious
district

grounds

court

denying Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

erred

for
in

Saunders

filed a pro se supplemental brief, asserting that his guilty
plea

was

neither

knowing

nor

voluntary.

The

Government

has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal based on Saunders’ waiver
of appellate rights.

We deny the motion and affirm.

We review de novo a defendant’s waiver of appellate rights.
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013).

A

defendant may waive his right to appeal as part of a valid plea
agreement.

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th

Cir. 2010).

In assessing whether an appellate waiver bars a

defendant’s appeal, we analyze both the validity and the scope
of the waiver.

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168, 171

n.10 (4th Cir. 2010).

“The validity of an appeal waiver depends

2

Appeal: 15-4413

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

on whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to
waive the right to appeal.”

Id. at 169.

Saunders does not challenge the validity of the waiver.
Moreover, a review of the record indicates that the district
court specifically reviewed the terms of the appellate waiver
with Saunders during the plea colloquy.

Given no indication in

the record to the contrary, we conclude that Saunders’ waiver of
appellate rights is valid and enforceable.
Saunders’ appellate waiver does not, however, preclude our
review of the voluntariness of the plea or the district court’s
denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on
ineffective

assistance

of

counsel.

See

Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 2005).

United

plea

colloquy

leaves

us

with

no

v.

Thus, we deny the

Government’s motion to dismiss Saunders’ appeal.
the

States

doubt

Our review of
that

Saunders

knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that the plea was
supported by an independent basis in fact.

With regard to the

denial of Saunders’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we have
reviewed the record and, after carefully considering the factors
set forth in United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 384 (4th
Cir. 2012), conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Saunders’ motion, see id. at 383 (stating
standard of review).

3

Appeal: 15-4413

Doc: 23

Filed: 01/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case, mindful of the scope of the appellate waiver, and
have

found

no

meritorious

grounds

for

appeal.

We

therefore

affirm the district court’s order denying Saunders’ motion to
withdraw
inform
Supreme

his

guilty

Saunders,
Court

of

plea.

in
the

This

writing,
United

of

court
his

States

requires
right

for

to

further

that

counsel

petition
review.

the
If

Saunders requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move for
leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Saunders.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4